Two questions:1. Does it disturb anyone else that he locked up the nomination by taking a hardline stance, and now that he is nominated he is abandoning that stance? He has already abandoned very important promises that he made, and he isn't even president yet.

Doesn't disturb me at all. As much as he likes to pretend to be different, he is just another politician except further to the left than most and also less experienced than most. This is seperate though from saying he abandoned his promise. He might still intend to keep it but is just trying to move to the middle to try to dupe the moderates into voting for him. His recent comments on things ranging from faith based initiatives to gun control to the war which completely contradict his previous views would be hillarious if he had no chance of getting away with it. Unfortunately, the media is in bed with him and with this "Obama is Messiah" complex many (although not most) of his supporters seem to have, especially those in the media, it is unlikely that it will recieve much airplay.

Two questions:2. Can someone explain to me the difference, if any, between McCain/GWB's policy and Obama's? Is there one?

Again, who knows what Obama would actually do if he was in office, but as of now, the only difference is that the media questions McCain's and GWB's policies even though they have been consistent but seldom, if ever, question Obama's even though they seem to change daily.

This is exactly why I always advise pre-laws to go to a local state school with little or no money over an expensive private school with a conditional scholarship. Often times, the state school ends up being cheaper overall even when you factor in the money at the private school for 1L year.

It sucks though when your state does not have a law school (the few of us out there)... my state tried to start one but the big shots who are Harvard/BC/BU grads got pissed about the idea and cut it down in the state legislature

I agree, this poll is slightly off since there are/have been socialist fascists. For example, few would argue that Hitler wasn't a fascist but he was also a socialist (Nazi party stood for national socialism). Although I don't think McCain or Obama are fascists ( go ahead and attack me Julie... I can't wait to see your caveman-like response to this) it is possible a socialist can be a fascist, perhaps even more so than a right-winger could be a fascist.

with libertarians squeezed in their somewhere but probably closer to the right

Which part are you having trouble with? That the Nazis were fascists or that they were Socialists? Both are pretty heavily documented if you bother to actually do the research

This gives me a bad taste in my mouth. Sure they engaged in kind of socialist behavior in that they wanted to spread out the wealth and fix the inflation problems of the 30s, but I assure you, when hitler nationalized Germany's industry, it wasnt just to give people jobs. It was out of a purely nationalist agenda in order to supercharge the German economy to accrue lebensraum. Communist International they were not; indeed the eastern front of world war 2 was the culmination of right vs left. Stalin was totalitarian...but definitely not fascist.

Fascist = Franco Mussolini Hitler, and maybe Juan Peron and SalazarCreepy Socialist totalitarianism = Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, and maybe the North Korean regime, although im not sure that that even qualifies.

Edit: I wonder if they through socialist in their title in 1924 to get a bunch of the German industrial workers classes to pay them part dues.

The nationalism was largely a part of the fascist nature of their regime. Your point, while interesting, accidentally misrepresents the facts. I do not know a lot about the internal policies of Peron, Salazar and to a lesser extent Franco, but I do know that Mussolini followed the same model as Hitler. In fact, Hitler built his policies in part off of what Mussolini did in Italy. They were both socialist economically though. Yes, they were not communist but that was a division within the left itself not the right against the left. Show me one policy where both favored the free markets over a government run economy. The fact of the matter, is that you can't because their brand of socialism is inseperable from their totalitarian approach to things. Nobel winner Fredrich Hayek had it right in Road to Serfdom, not that I expect many liberals to actually read that book.

I dont think that just because you have a planned economy you have a socialist economy. I.e. there is a difference between building an economic machine purely for military conquest and imperialism, and building an economy to promote a global workers rebellion against the bourgeoisie.

Right, the first is more socialist and the second is more comunist in their approaches. Thats not to say the Soviets were socialist instead of communist mind you, only to note that it is much more likely for a commie to talk about a global workers rebellion than a socialist

you have no idea what you talking about. what up, you just write C- paper on this for your high school?

Actually, I am guessing, based on your writing style alone that all of my papers have graded better than yours. Regardless, this is from a nobel prize winner:

It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background. If that were so, the movement would be much less dangerous than it is. But nothing could be further from the truth or more misleading. The doctrines of National Socialism are the culmination of a long evolution of thought, a process in which thinkers who have had great influence far beyond the confines of Germany have taken part. Whatever one may think of the premises from which they started, it cannot be denied that the men who produced the new doctrines were powerful writers who left the impress of their ideas on the whole of European thought. Their system was developed with ruthless consistency. Once one accepts the premises from which it starts, there is no escape from its logic. It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization.

....

What, then, caused these views held by a reactionary minority finally to gain the support of the great majority of Germans and practically the whole of Germany's youth? It was not merely the defeat, the suffering, and the wave of nationalism which led to their success. Still less was the cause, as so many people wish to believe, a capitalist reaction against the advance of socialism. On the contrary, the support which brought these ideas to power came precisely from the socialist camp. It was certainly not through the bourgeoisie, but rather through the absence of a strong bourgeoisie, that they were helped to power.

... the socialists of the Left approached more and more to those of the Right. It was the union of the anticapitalist forces of the Right and of the Left, the fusion of radical and conservative socialism, which drove out from Germany everything that was liberal.

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. .... From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.

Hayek, Road to Serfdom....

Who knows more/is more intelligent? A Nobel Prize winner in Economics or Julie Fern who can barely form a coherent sentence?

do you even know what socialism is, forrest? julie think not.

Actually, I do. Regardless, thanks again for not adequately responding to what I am saying but instead going off and hurling insults.

An incredibly important and commonly overlooked thing to consider is what was just mentioned in the previous post: Minimum GPA. I turned down a few lower Tier 1 schools, and lesser scholarships at Tier 2's, to go to a 90's ranked school on full scholarship. I figured hey, 3.25 GPA should be a breeze, they obviously want me bad enough and think I have a ton of potential, I have nothing to worry about! I worked very hard all semester, knew the material well, but am just below the GPA cut-off, and am losing about 39K/year. Now it seems that the whole point of me going to this school has become null, and because of how random law school grading can be, I may have done even better at a higher ranked school. You have to realize that law schools care about one thing: Prestige and $$$. As such, they want students with high LSATs and good undergraduate schools to come to their law school, then make it very hard to maintain the scholarship...by the time the scholarship is lost, your GPA probably isn't high enough to transfer, and you're stuck helping the school with their rankings, but losing the sole reason you came to the school. It's a pretty terrible system. I agree that there should be a minimum GPA, but all or nothing, especially when dealing with a full scholarship, is nuts. I have a friend who got a 3.23, literally, and he lost it all. I guess I would say don't expect to kick ass at a school just because they throw you money...there is plenty of subjectivey and randomness to grading, not to mention that regardless of where you guy, there are plenty of hard working, intelligent students who can compete for those A's. DO NOT take the scholarship for granted, and work out your finances under the assumption that you will keep it for 3 years.

I guess maybe I am just lucky but I ended up going to the lower ranked school for $$$ and it worked out.

At my school, almost every 1L is offered a scholarship of some kind or another (but you don't hear about it until about a month after classes start) so it is kind of competitive but....

its not based on GPA but instead on rank and is not one cut off ratetop 1/3 keeps 100% of scholarshiptop 1/2 keeps 80%top 3/4 keeps 50%or something along those lines if I remember correctly. It is checked every year too out of your cumulative GPA instead of every semester. I was worred but ended up in the top 1/4 so I am able to keep the whole thing.

I agree, this poll is slightly off since there are/have been socialist fascists. For example, few would argue that Hitler wasn't a fascist but he was also a socialist (Nazi party stood for national socialism). Although I don't think McCain or Obama are fascists ( go ahead and attack me Julie... I can't wait to see your caveman-like response to this) it is possible a socialist can be a fascist, perhaps even more so than a right-winger could be a fascist.

with libertarians squeezed in their somewhere but probably closer to the right

Which part are you having trouble with? That the Nazis were fascists or that they were Socialists? Both are pretty heavily documented if you bother to actually do the research

This gives me a bad taste in my mouth. Sure they engaged in kind of socialist behavior in that they wanted to spread out the wealth and fix the inflation problems of the 30s, but I assure you, when hitler nationalized Germany's industry, it wasnt just to give people jobs. It was out of a purely nationalist agenda in order to supercharge the German economy to accrue lebensraum. Communist International they were not; indeed the eastern front of world war 2 was the culmination of right vs left. Stalin was totalitarian...but definitely not fascist.

Fascist = Franco Mussolini Hitler, and maybe Juan Peron and SalazarCreepy Socialist totalitarianism = Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, and maybe the North Korean regime, although im not sure that that even qualifies.

Edit: I wonder if they through socialist in their title in 1924 to get a bunch of the German industrial workers classes to pay them part dues.

The nationalism was largely a part of the fascist nature of their regime. Your point, while interesting, accidentally misrepresents the facts. I do not know a lot about the internal policies of Peron, Salazar and to a lesser extent Franco, but I do know that Mussolini followed the same model as Hitler. In fact, Hitler built his policies in part off of what Mussolini did in Italy. They were both socialist economically though. Yes, they were not communist but that was a division within the left itself not the right against the left. Show me one policy where both favored the free markets over a government run economy. The fact of the matter, is that you can't because their brand of socialism is inseperable from their totalitarian approach to things. Nobel winner Fredrich Hayek had it right in Road to Serfdom, not that I expect many liberals to actually read that book.

I dont think that just because you have a planned economy you have a socialist economy. I.e. there is a difference between building an economic machine purely for military conquest and imperialism, and building an economy to promote a global workers rebellion against the bourgeoisie.

Right, the first is more socialist and the second is more comunist in their approaches. Thats not to say the Soviets were socialist instead of communist mind you, only to note that it is much more likely for a commie to talk about a global workers rebellion than a socialist

you have no idea what you talking about. what up, you just write C- paper on this for your high school?

Actually, I am guessing, based on your writing style alone that all of my papers have graded better than yours. Regardless, this is from a nobel prize winner:

It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background. If that were so, the movement would be much less dangerous than it is. But nothing could be further from the truth or more misleading. The doctrines of National Socialism are the culmination of a long evolution of thought, a process in which thinkers who have had great influence far beyond the confines of Germany have taken part. Whatever one may think of the premises from which they started, it cannot be denied that the men who produced the new doctrines were powerful writers who left the impress of their ideas on the whole of European thought. Their system was developed with ruthless consistency. Once one accepts the premises from which it starts, there is no escape from its logic. It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization.

....

What, then, caused these views held by a reactionary minority finally to gain the support of the great majority of Germans and practically the whole of Germany's youth? It was not merely the defeat, the suffering, and the wave of nationalism which led to their success. Still less was the cause, as so many people wish to believe, a capitalist reaction against the advance of socialism. On the contrary, the support which brought these ideas to power came precisely from the socialist camp. It was certainly not through the bourgeoisie, but rather through the absence of a strong bourgeoisie, that they were helped to power.

... the socialists of the Left approached more and more to those of the Right. It was the union of the anticapitalist forces of the Right and of the Left, the fusion of radical and conservative socialism, which drove out from Germany everything that was liberal.

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. .... From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.

Hayek, Road to Serfdom....

Who knows more/is more intelligent? A Nobel Prize winner in Economics or Julie Fern who can barely form a coherent sentence?

I agree, this poll is slightly off since there are/have been socialist fascists. For example, few would argue that Hitler wasn't a fascist but he was also a socialist (Nazi party stood for national socialism). Although I don't think McCain or Obama are fascists ( go ahead and attack me Julie... I can't wait to see your caveman-like response to this) it is possible a socialist can be a fascist, perhaps even more so than a right-winger could be a fascist.

with libertarians squeezed in their somewhere but probably closer to the right

Which part are you having trouble with? That the Nazis were fascists or that they were Socialists? Both are pretty heavily documented if you bother to actually do the research

This gives me a bad taste in my mouth. Sure they engaged in kind of socialist behavior in that they wanted to spread out the wealth and fix the inflation problems of the 30s, but I assure you, when hitler nationalized Germany's industry, it wasnt just to give people jobs. It was out of a purely nationalist agenda in order to supercharge the German economy to accrue lebensraum. Communist International they were not; indeed the eastern front of world war 2 was the culmination of right vs left. Stalin was totalitarian...but definitely not fascist.

Fascist = Franco Mussolini Hitler, and maybe Juan Peron and SalazarCreepy Socialist totalitarianism = Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, and maybe the North Korean regime, although im not sure that that even qualifies.

Edit: I wonder if they through socialist in their title in 1924 to get a bunch of the German industrial workers classes to pay them part dues.

The nationalism was largely a part of the fascist nature of their regime. Your point, while interesting, accidentally misrepresents the facts. I do not know a lot about the internal policies of Peron, Salazar and to a lesser extent Franco, but I do know that Mussolini followed the same model as Hitler. In fact, Hitler built his policies in part off of what Mussolini did in Italy. They were both socialist economically though. Yes, they were not communist but that was a division within the left itself not the right against the left. Show me one policy where both favored the free markets over a government run economy. The fact of the matter, is that you can't because their brand of socialism is inseperable from their totalitarian approach to things. Nobel winner Fredrich Hayek had it right in Road to Serfdom, not that I expect many liberals to actually read that book.

I dont think that just because you have a planned economy you have a socialist economy. I.e. there is a difference between building an economic machine purely for military conquest and imperialism, and building an economy to promote a global workers rebellion against the bourgeoisie.

Right, the first is more socialist and the second is more comunist in their approaches. Thats not to say the Soviets were socialist instead of communist mind you, only to note that it is much more likely for a commie to talk about a global workers rebellion than a socialist